Organizational Theories and the Educational Organization

Jennifer PowersSecondary Specialization Comprehensive Paper

Organizational StudiesSpring 2000

INTRODUCTION

This paper has two goals: (1) to survey the current institution of higher education and itsenvironment within the context of a collection of organizational theories and (2) to exam-ine the classroom structure in terms of structural contingency theory. The first part will focuson:

• institutional theory as a nonchange perspective of the educational organiza-tions themselves

• population ecology and resource dependency theory as change perspectivesof the educational environment and the impact those changes have on theorganizations.

Within this part, each theory will be explained and then applied to the educational setting.

The second part presents Donaldson’s SARFIT model of structural contingency theory(Donaldson 1996). It briefly examines organizational structure and uses Mintzberg’s fiveorganizational structures to develop a new model of classroom structures. Classroom con-tingencies are outlined and the final model shows how different classroom structures aremore suitable to different contingencies. A hypothetical case is presented for illustration.

PART I: ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

AND THE EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION

INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

Institutional theory can help explain why some colleges and universities are the way theyare: What makes certain practices legitimate? What are the values imbued in some univer-sities and copied by others? Why are sets of universities, such as the Ivy League, so similar?

The institutional model of organizations does two things very well: it explains the differenttypes of legitimacy an organization can attain and it explains why organizations can be sosimilar. Scott’s (1995) definition of institution highlights the multifacetedness of this uniquetype of organization:

Institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activi-ties that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institutions are trans-ported by various carriers—cultures, structures, and routines—and they operateat multiple levels of jurisdiction (33).

Furthermore, Selznick (1996) explains the function of the institutional model, which

traces the emergence of distinctive forms, processes, strategies, outlooks, andcompetencies as they emerge from patterns of organizational interaction andadaptation. Such patterns must be understood as responses to both internal andexternal environments (271).

1

Institutional theory helps explain why some organizations take the form they do and whythey are considered legitimate institutions.

Selznick (1996) explains that “legitimacy is seen as an organizational ‘imperative’ that isboth a source of inertia and a summons to justify particular forms and practices” (273).Scott (1995) introduces three bases of legitimacy for organizations: regulative, normativeand cognitive. The regulative pillar involves rules, laws and sanctions (i.e., “what is the lawis the right way”). The normative pillar involves social obligation, norms and values (i.e.,“what society says is right is the right way”). Finally, the cognitive pillar involves symbols,beliefs and social identities (i.e., “this is the right way because there simply is no otherway”). Institutions gain legitimacy based on these three pillars: regulative legitimacy comesthrough following the rules; normative legitimacy is developed through complying withinternalized morals; and cognitive legitimacy evolves from doing things the way they havealways been done.

Furthermore, there are certain myths and rituals that have come to symbolize how anorganization should be structured and work. These values drive organizations, not ration-al choice. There is a taken-for-grantedness that pervades organizations.

Because organizations seek legitimacy, they tend to seem similar. DiMaggio and Powell(1983, in Mizruchi and Fein 1999) explain this as isomorphism and classify it into threetypes: coercive, mimetic and normative. Coercive isomorphism occurs when organizationsare forced to act a certain way by either another organization or cultural expectations (i.e.,“the government said so”). Mimetic isomorphism is when organizations copy each otherwhen they are uncertain about which course of action to follow themselves (i.e., “it workedfor them, so it might work for us”). Finally, normative isomorphism occurs when managersat different organizations are trained in similar way or when they interact professionally(i.e., “we all do it this way”). DiMaggio and Powell also explain that more than one ofthese processes may occur at the same time. Subsequent articles regarding institutional the-ory, however, have concentrated primarily on mimetic forces. Mizruchi and Fein (1999)explore this selective attention, explaining that just as organizations socially construct theirown knowledge, so too do organizational scholars, especially in North America.

In addition to Mizruchi and Fein’s finding that coercive and normative explanations areoften overlooked due to reliance on mimetic isomorphism, one of the most common criti-cisms of institutional theory is that it attempts to explain everything, bringing forth thequestion: What is institutional theory not? Hall (1992) explains that “the problem is thatIT can be given as the explanation for all unexplained variance” (82). Hall also highlightsadditional problems with institutional theory explanations: the reasoning is often tauto-logical, or circular; little attention is paid “to what is institutionalized and what is not”(79); there is a love of myth, to the exclusion of seeing problems as real; and there has been“inconsistent operationalization of some major concepts” (82). Mizruchi and Fein (1999)agree that operationalization of normative and coercive influences has been problematicand could be a contributing factor to the seeming neglect of those forces.

Institutional Theory and the University

Schools gain legitimacy in much the same way other organizations do: through regulative,normative and cognitive processes. A regulative form of legitimacy, for instance, can be seen

2

in that some state schools are required by the state government to make physical educationa mandatory course. Normative legitimacy can be gained through doing things like otherschools, such as offering financial aid to students and requiring a certain number of semes-ters of foreign language study. Finally, a form of cognitive legitimacy is demonstrated whenguidance counselors in high schools always recommend certain colleges. Catholic highschools, for instance, will strongly encourage their students to apply to Catholic colleges.

Like legitimacy, isomorphism of colleges and universities can be tracked to the three mainforms: coercive, mimetic and normative. Coercive isomorphism happens because of regu-lations, such as requirements for accreditation. Mimetic isomorphism occurs when schoolscopy each other, such as by all requiring SAT scores. Normative isomorphism comes aboutfrom the same people moving from school to school or, for instance, when all doctoral stu-dents are taught the same way, as professors, they bring the same teaching styles with themto their classrooms.

POPULATION ECOLOGY

Population ecologists believe that the environment determines the chances of success orfailure for organizations. Baum (1996) categorizes these processes of determinism intothree sets: (1) demographic processes, which include age dependence (i.e., liability of new-ness, liability of adolescence, liability of obsolesence) and size dependence (i.e., liability ofsmallness); (2) ecological processes, which include niche width dynamics (i.e., specialist vs.generalist), population dynamics (i.e., prior foundings and failures), density dependenceand community interdependence (i.e., both rely on population density); and (3) environ-mental processes, which include institutional factors (i.e., government regulations, politicalturmoil) and technological factors (i.e., technology cycles).

Because the overriding position of this model is that environments determine how organi-zations are created and what they do, goals do not play a prominent role in organizations.Instead, organizations go through a cycle:

variation —> selection —> retention ( —> competition)

Baum (1996) explains that “Variations are human behaviors. Any kind of change, inten-tional or blind, is variation” (78). Because managers can not determine in advance howvariations will affect the organization, selection is a stage when the environment selects theorganizational population (or not) and its response to the variation. Retention is when theforms selected by the environment become characterized by the variation. Aldrich andAuster (1986) point out that “selection and retention, combined with the creation of neworganizational forms, transform the composition of the whole population of organizationsso that they are better suited to their environment” (166). Baum adds competition to thestandard variation–selection–retention cycle, which is when competing organizationsbecome a key part of an organization’s environment.

A key aspect of population ecology is that other organizations play a role in affecting thechances of success or failure for an organization. For instance, a high number of organiza-tions already occupying a particular niche will make the founding of a new organization inthat niche less likely to occur or, if it is founded, to succeed. Likewise, the model itself

3

focuses on populations of organizations, not individual organizations, which also empha-sizes the interplay among organizations. Baum and Oliver (1996) recognize the areas ofconcern relative to organizational foundings: organizational niche differentiation, orresource nonoverlap; organizational niche as including “differences in the competitive ori-entations and social legitimacy of organizations” (1380); and the level of analysis as includ-ing institutional processes (and the degree of embeddedness).

Population ecologists believe that because environments change faster than organizations,the performance of organizations is determined by the environment and not managers orstrategic choice. Population ecologists believe that organizations are born and die duemainly to environmental factors. As the density of a population of organizations grows, itbecomes more difficult for new organizations to be born within that population and forexisting organizations to continue existing as resources become more scarce.

For instance, Aldrich and Auster (1986) focus on liabilities of age and size, recognizing thatlarge or old organizations may have a more difficult time maintaining vitality. They haveeither retained routines that cannot adapt well to a changing environment or their niche hasbecome “increasingly vulnerable to invasion by newer forms of organizations” (168). Atthe same time, liabilities of newness and smallness have related concerns. As previouslymentioned, foundings themselves can be difficult. Additionally, the rate of dissolution ofnew firms is also remarkably high. Liabilities of newness may include: “(1) product differ-entiation, (2) technical barriers, (3) licensing and regulatory barriers, (4) barriers of entrydue to vertical integration, (5) illegitimate acts by competitors, and (6) experiential barri-ers to entry” (Aldrich and Auster 1986, 177). Although little has been studied regardingliabilities of smallness, Aldrich and Auster (1986) have identified four constraints: (1) rais-ing capital, (2) tax laws, (3) government regulations, and (4) competition for labor.

In contrast to notions of selection, adaptation is a relatively new area of interest for popu-lation ecologists. Hannan (1998) explains that four aspects of organizations that can havea significant bearing on their ability to withstand or adapt to environmental changes:endowment, imprinting, capability and position. Hannan (1998) defines endowment as the

quantities and qualities of their initial resources. Some get endowed with exten-sive financial and social capital, because their founders have great wealth, sta-tus or political influence or because the social conditions of founding are favor-able (131).

There is a period of immunity for organizations from environmental factors while theendowment is high. As the endowment dwindles, however, this period tapers off as well andorganizations then become exposed.

Imprinting is “a process in which events occurring at certain key developmental stages havepersisting—perhaps lifelong—consequences” (Hannan 1998, 132). Hannan furtherexplains that “if imprinting occurs, then founders build organizations that fit historicallyspecific environments . . . then environmental change will erode the fit between organiza-tions and environments” (132).

Capability refers to the “ability to execute routines and solve problems . . . capabilities arecontext specific” (Hannan 1998, 132). This sounds like structural contingency theory(explained in more detail below), however, and is a move away from traditional populationecology.

4

Position is the “organization’s position in the social structure” (Hannan 1998, 134). Itinvolves trust and good relations with other organizations and actors. It can also includetraits such as high status, market power, political influence and favorable reputation. Thesepositions also bridge structural holes. There are two types of position: fragile and robust.A fragile position can be destroyed by environmental changes, while a robust position canwithstand environmental drift.

There are criticisms regarding population ecology explanations, however. One is the rela-tive lack of attention paid to which organizations are affected by which process and why.Why are certain organizations imprinted and others are not? There appears to be a “blackbox” process that is left unexplored. Amburgey and Rao (1996) explain that “because ofthe dearth of research on the subprocesses of incorporation and operational start-up in sin-gle organizational forms, researchers know little about the antecedents of successful organ-izing attempts” (1273).

A related concern deals with mortality rates. Embeddedness is often overlooked when pre-dicting mortality because population ecologists often fail to examine “how existing organ-izations are relationally embedded in social networks” (Amburgey and Rao 1996, 1274).Structural embeddedness, too, may play a role in spreading hostile influences and promot-ing organizational death, but is often ignored.

Finally, Perrow (1986) offers additional criticism, charging that some versions of popula-tion ecology ignore issues of “power, conflict, disruption, and social-class variables. . . . Itneglects the fact that our world is made in large part by particular men and women withparticular needs” (213). Powerful people, as well as ecological processes, create anddestroy organizations.

Organizational Ecology and the Education Environment

The environment of universities is changing. But some universities have characteristics thatshield them from these pressures. For instance, there is no question that some universitiesare well-endowed, both financially and socially. But there are also many that are not. Willthey be the ones that cannot withstand the rapid pace of change in the environment? Thissection will use Hannan’s (1998) model to examine universities through a population ecol-ogy lens.

Imprinting may be an issue for universities, in two respects. The first is that universities thatwere founded centuries ago may get “stuck.” For instance, these universities are less likelyto change because of their history. But, at the same time, if they still exist, and many do, itmay be an indication that they have become institutionalized and are not “historically spe-cific.” The second issue is that there are also universities that have been imprinted, but arenot institutionalized and these are the ones that are in jeopardy of dying.

Some schools also have the capability to deal with new environments. For instance, someschools are beginning to offer courses online to tailor to the nontraditional students whocannot be bound by time or place. Other schools are also beginning to reward faculty mem-bers, through tenure and promotion, for innovative teaching, not just research.

Furthermore, some schools have robust positions, such as the California state universities,and are not in jeopardy of dying, regardless of the environmental drift. Likewise, other

5

schools are in a fragile position and are faced with declining enrollments because they didnot meet the needs of the new environment.

Other universities are using the environmental shift to establish themselves in new niches.Concord University Law School, for example, is a newly-founded online law programcatered to non-traditional students. Concord was founded to appeal to “students, profes-sionals, family caretakers, students in rural communities and other individuals whose cir-cumstances prevent them from pursuing a legal education at a fixed facility” (Concordwebsite). Concord is the first online law school, grabbing a niche in the eduction market.Because Kaplan Educational Center and the Washington Post are the parent organizations,Concord has an available audience or set of consumers, imprinting the organization withcertain standards and giving an endowment of Kaplan’s experience and students.

RESOURCE DEPENDENCY THEORY

Like population ecology, resource dependence theory also focuses on environmentallydriven aspects of organizations. Because organizations can not generate all their neededresources, they must depend on their environment (other organizations) for resources.Donaldson (1995) reports that Salanick and Pfeffer’s research shows that only ten percentof an organization’s performance is determined by internal factors and the rest is exter-nally motivated. Like population ecology, the resource dependency model holds thatorganizations go through a selection and retention cycle. Unlike the other model, howev-er, this one believes that selection is determined by decisions made within the organization.

Furthermore, like population ecology, this model holds that goals are not the driving forcebehind what organizations do. Instead, Pfeffer and Salanick (1978) believe that organiza-tions “alter[ing] their purposes and domains to accommodate new interests, sloughing offparts of themselves to avoid some interests, when necessary, becoming involved in activi-ties far afield from their stated central purposes” (23). Rather than change their structureor strategy to meet changing demands, it is believed that organizations change their goalsto meet the available resources.

Another similarity between the two models is the belief that other organizations play a sig-nificant role in what organizations do. This model believes that organizations must relyheavily on other organizations for resources they do not make themselves. This is the basictenant of the resource dependence model.

Resource dependency, however, holds that managers are vital in making decisions aboutresource acquisition and determining how the organization should respond to the environ-mental pressures. Furthermore, these decisions are made in relation to strategy (althoughthe strategy may change with changing goals, as mentioned above). Additionally, the inter-nal power structure is very important to organizations. Those managers who make thedecisions have autonomy. Power is also centralized in the hands of the resource holders. Forinstance, resources that are crucial will give more power to the resource holder. There arecertain restrictions to decisions, however, such as legal or economic constraints.

Meanwhile, resource dependency theorists believe that organizations can and will adapt toenvironmental misfit. This can be either through altering their goals, as noted above, or

6

through attempting to alter the environment. Again, strategic choice is crucial to organiza-tions and their managers. Organizations can attempt to manipulate their environmentthrough various means, such as initiating mergers, influencing legislation and creating ademand for their resources.

Donaldson (1995), however, challenges Pfeffer and Salanick (1978) on a set of issues, ofwhich only two will be examined here. First, he introduces the phenomenon of counter-influence. This phenomenon states that the more one organization depends on another, themore it disobeys that organization. While resource dependency theorists argue that if oneorganization depends on another, that organization has power over the dependent organi-zation, Donaldson is suggesting that the opposite may also be true. Furthermore,Donaldson challenges Pfeffer and Salanick’s assertion that organizations want to maintainautonomy in the face of resource dependence. He argues that often it is more important toorganizations to thrive than merely survive, therefore they realize that some autonomy mayneed to be sacrificed.

Resource Dependency and the Educational Environment

As demonstrated throughout this paper, the environment of higher education organizationsis rapidly changing. More and more, students are a scarce resource and universities arefaced with pressure to manipulate the environment in order to attract more students.Realizing IT is causing some of the changes in education, universities are attempting tochange both how they provide services and how they think about education in order tomeet the demands of the environment. Indirectly, this is also changing the environmentitself.

For example, recognizing the need for access to IT, many schools are wiring the dorms sostudents can access the network from their rooms, or are installing computer labs in thedorms for easier access. As already mentioned, some schools are beginning to offer onlinecourses for nontraditional students. Many schools are using an online application systemas well. A significant change can be found at some schools, like Indiana University/PurdueUniversity Indianapolis (IUPUI), where they have incorporated innovative teaching withtraditional research as criteria for tenure. They have also set up support services for inno-vative teaching, such as time off and grants for planning their courses. By altering theirprocesses, these schools are changing the educational environment for other schools, caus-ing a circle of manipulation of the environment in an attempt to attract more students, acritical resource.

PART II: A NEW MODEL FOR CLASSROOM STRUCTURES

While the previous three organizational paradigms explore the interactivity between organ-izations and their environment, they pay less attention to organization’s internal demands.Structural contingency theory, on the other hand, focuses on how organizations determinewhich organizational structure to take. Likewise, as institutional theory, population ecolo-gy and resource dependency can explain aspects of university behavior and decision mak-ing, structural contingency theory can be used to examine different classroom structures.

7

This section will present Donaldson’s SARFIT model and apply it to classroom structuremisfit in higher education organizations. But first, a brief overview of organizational struc-ture and five specific structures will be presented. Mintzberg’s five structures will serve asa basis for five classroom structures, which will then be examined for their ability to meetvarious contingencies.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

An organization’s structure includes the “recurrent set of relationships between organiza-tional members,” such as authority and reporting relationships, behaviors as required byrules, patterns of decision-making, communication and other behaviors (Donaldson 1996,57). Hall (1999) discusses organizational structure in terms of three variables: formality,complexity and centralization. Formality can be measured by the written rules in an organ-ization and involves “organizational control over the individual” (Hall 1999, 64).Complexity can be measured by the “division of labor, job titles, multiple divisions, andhierarchical levels” (Hall 1999, 50). Centralization “refers to the distribution of powerwithin organizations” (Hall 1999, 74). These three variables will be used later in examin-ing the fit between classroom structures and contingencies.

Mintzberg (1979) discusses five organizational structures that have varying degrees of for-mality, complexity and centralization: simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professionalbureaucracy, divisionalized form and adhocracy. He holds that organizations are made upof a combination of five elements (though not all elements need be present in all organiza-tions): the operating core, who does the work; the strategic apex, who does the planningand controlling; the middle line, who joins the operating core to the strategic apex; thetechnostructure, who plans the work and organizes the assets of the organization; and thesupport staff, who provides support outside the workflow of the organization. His fiveorganizational structures will be used as the basis for the five classroom structures devel-oped below.

STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY

Structural contingency theory holds that there is no single, effective structure for all organ-izations. Instead, organizations must adapt their structures to fit the contingency factorsand the environment as they affect the organization.

Contingency factors can include: strategy, size, task uncertainty, parent organization, pub-lic accountability, critical assets and technology (Donaldson 1996, 206). Not all organiza-tions will face these contingencies and some organizations will certainly face contingenciesnot mentioned here.

8

SARFIT

The key element of structural contingency theory is that organizations must fit their struc-ture to the contingency factors in order to maintain and improve performance. Donaldsonoffers an explanation of the cycle with his SARFIT (structural adaptation to regain fit)model (Donaldson 1995; Donaldson 1996). The stages of this model are:

(1) An organization is in fit;

(2) There is a contingency change;

(3) The organization is in misfit and performance suffers;

(4) The organization does structural adaptation;

(5) The organization achieves a new fit and performance recovers.

Strategic choice also plays a role in the SARFIT model in that “the organization bows tothe imperative of adopting a new structure that fits its new level of the contingency factorin order to avoid loss of performance from misfit” (Donaldson 1996, 66). Donaldson alsonotes that often organizations must suffer a severe loss of performance before acknowl-edging that they are in misfit and must adapt the structure.

THE CLASSROOM & ITS CONTINGENCIES

Instructors face contingencies every time they plan a course. These contingencies include:(1) the learning objectives; (2) the cognitive domains they hope to obtain; (3) the technol-ogy they will use; and (4) the assessment techniques (Rueter & Perrin 1998). Finally, theymust determine which classroom structure will fit with these considerations.

Considering “fit” of the classroom structure, the issue of different students having differ-ent learning styles becomes obvious. Sometimes, students’ learning styles do not fit with theinstructors’ teaching styles. Does this explain why some very bright students have troublein certain classes? Does this explain why certain types of assignments work for some stu-dents and not for others? There are different aspects (contingencies) involved in classroomstructure and sometimes they get crossed in a misfit. For example, a teacher might expecther students to reach the synthesis cognitive level, but rely on lectures as the technology.But, lectures are not an appropriate method of teaching for this cognitive level. This will beexplained in more detail below.

The learning objectives usually depend on the field of the course. For instance, physical sci-ence courses usually have objectives of: following processes, explaining relationships andrecognizing how things work; as opposed to social science courses which would strive toteach students to identify features of certain phenomena and differentiate principles.Humanities courses, on another hand, would probably want students to engage in a dia-logue about a topic to further their understanding (Rueter & Perrin 1998).

Cognitive domains, according to Bloom’s Taxonomy, are: knowledge, comprehension,application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (see Figure 1). Faculty recognize that it isnecessary to have a grasp on the lower levels before moving up to higher levels. Certaintasks are geared towards mastery of each cognitive level.

9

There are many choices in the technology used in teaching. Some examples include: lec-tures, student presentations, experience through field trips or laboratories, independentresearch, topic-specific software, videos, electronic communication and multimedia pre-sentations. Teachers can use different technologies in one course.

Assessment is a way of evaluating how well a technology fits with the student’s learningstyle in achieving the learning objective and cognitive domain. It is an evaluation of per-formance. Like technology, assessment can take many forms, some of which include: minipapers, quizzes, in-class exercises, class discussion, research papers, listserv activity, take-home exams and individual or group projects. Instructors often use a combination ofassessment tools that result in a final grade. Performance of the teacher is also assessed,usually with a course evaluation at the end of the term.

THE CLASSROOM & ITS STRUCTURE

Modeling Mintzberg’s classification, I have developed five types of classroom structures, asan example of how the classroom structure can affect the way teachers and learners inter-act. Table 1 gives an overview of each structure.

10

Comprehension

Application

Evaluation

Analysis

Synthesis

Knowledge

Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy

The traditional structure, based on Mintzberg’s Machine Bureaucracy because of its hier-archical nature, is probably the most common classroom structure. In this model, theteacher is the sole source of knowledge (high centralization) and uses lectures, handoutsand notes to impart this knowledge onto the students (high formality). The students arepassive learners. Tests are usually the method of assessment (low complexity). The goal ofthis type of structure is for the teacher to give the student knowledge on vocabulary andbasic processes. Figure 2 illustrates the traditional structure.

The star structure is one in which the student is the focus of the activity. This structure isbased on Mintzberg’s Professional Bureaucracy because while it is complex, it is also sta-ble, since everyone relies on everyone else for knowledge. The teacher, however, is still pres-ent in order to guide the students, ensuring a standard set of skills. The students and teacherare all active learners who engage in conversation to teach each other (low centralization).

11

Learner LearnerLearner Learner

Teacher

Figure 2. Traditional Classroom Structure

Key Part ofClassroom Based on Structural Classroom Main Feature of Cognitive LearningStructure Mintzberg’s Characteristics Design Classroom Design Level Objective

Traditional Machine high formality Teacher Lectures Knowledge Understand vocabularyStructure Bureaucracy low complexity and simple processes

high centralization

Star Professional high formality Learner Presentation by Synthesis and Integrate informationStructure Bureaucracy high complexity learners Evaluation from multiple sources

low centralization

Circular Simple low formality Real World Experience, Comprehension Observe, gain Structure Structure low complexity observation, knowledge first-hand

high centralization laboratories

Flat Divisionalized low formality Research Individual pursuit of Application and Find information andStructure Form low complexity knowledge Evaluation judge its quality

high centralization

Complex Adhocracy low formality Learner+ Assessment of All Levels Appreciate the effortStructure high complexity information, transform- needed to integrate

high centralization ation of information into materials and convertknowledge data and information

into knowledge

Table 1. Outline of Classroom Structures

Student presentations on their individual learning experiences can be the basis for assess-ment (high formality). The goal is for students to be able to integrate information frommultiple sources and attain the synthesis and evaluation cognitive levels (high complexity).Figure 3 illustrates the star structure.

A circular structure, based on Mintzberg’s Simple Structure because of its centralized andorganic nature, is one in which the learner draws on a circle of knowledge sources, includ-ing other students, teachers, real-life experiences and observation (low formality, low com-plexity, high centralization). Through first-hand experience with the subject matter, stu-dents are expected to attain the cognitive level of comprehension. Figure 4 illustrates thecircular structure.

12

Observation

Experience

Learner

Teacher

Learner

Figure 4. Circular Classroom Structure

Teacher Learner

Learner

Learner

Learner

Figure 3. Star Classroom Structure

The fourth classroom structure can be called the flat structure, based on Mintzberg’sDivisionalized Form because of its focus on specialization and autonomy. The student issolely responsible for her learning through independent research (high centralization).There is no class with which to share this knowledge and the student relies on her ownlearning style to attain knowledge (low complexity). Assessment is on an individual basis(low formality). Figure 5 illustrates a flat structure.

The final classroom structure is called the complex structure and is based on Mintzberg’sAdhocracy because of its complex and dynamic nature. The complex structure can be acombination of any or all of the first four structures (high complexity). For instance, a stu-dent may draw on their knowledge gained in a traditional structure course, and do inde-pendent research, and use real-life experience, and gain knowledge by discussing with otherlearners. Assessment is on an individual and personalized basis (low formality, high cen-tralization). This is illustrated in Figure 6.

13

Observation

Experience

Teacher

Learner Learner

Learner

Learner

Teacher

Research

Figure 6. Complex Classroom Structure

ResearchLearner

Figure 5. Flat Classroom Structure

A NEW MODEL: THE CLASSROOM AND STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY

When deciding how to structure their classrooms, instructors must consider contingencies.This section is an attempt to formulate a schema for determining which structure will havethe best fit according to the contingencies. Table 2, developed through consideration of thecontingencies (pp. 9–10 of this paper) and the structural characteristics of each classroomtype (pp. 11–13 of this paper), outlines these contingencies crossed with classroom struc-tures. Further discussion follows.

Not surprisingly, the traditional structure fits best with fields that are based on facts (orknowledge), such as the physical sciences. This structure is also suited to technologies thatrely on the instructor sharing knowledge with students, such as lectures and multimediapresentations.

The star structure, on the hand, is better suited to fields that rely on learning throughdoing, discussing or experiencing, such as the social sciences or humanities. It is assumedin these courses that the facts are probably already known or are not central to the goalsof the course. Instead, these courses are geared towards synthesis and evaluation of infor-mation. Art appreciation, for instance, is not something that can be taught as a checklist

14

Traditional Star Circular Flat Complex

Objective by FieldSocial Sciences X X X XPhysical Sciences X X X XHumanities X X XArts X X XMath X X X

Cognitive DomainsKnowledge X XComprehension X XApplication X XAnalysis X X XSynthesis X X X XEvaluation X X X

TechnologyLectures X XStudent Presentations X XField Trips X X XLaboratories X X XIndependent Research X XSoftware X X XVideos X X XElectronic Communication X X XMultimedia X X

AssessmentObjective XSubjective X X X X

Table 2. Model for Classroom Structures in Fit with Contingencies

of memorizable facts. It is much more subtle than that. The star structure, relying on indi-vidual students and the instructor sharing their knowledge and understanding of an area,allows subtlties to become more evident.

The circular structure can be applied to almost any field because of its loose nature, rely-ing on a variety of technologies and achieving a collection of cognitive levels. Because theflat structure is so similar to the circular structure in levels of formality, complexity andcentralization, only lacking a class with which to share learning experiences, it too can bewidely applied across fields.

One of the most notable aspects of Table 2 is that the complex structure seems applicableto almost any contingency. This is because it is so versatile and can consist of any combi-nation of other structures. The only aspect for which it is inappropriate is objective assess-ment. Because the complex structure does include many aspects of learning, a simple mul-tiple choice examination, for instance, would not accurately assess the amount or qualityof learning accomplished.

Another striking feature of this table is that, in general, as you move to the right (i.e., awayfrom the traditional structure), more contingencies are met. For instance, the flat structureencompasses more technologies for learning than the traditional, star or circular structures.This can be explained by the notion that the structures, as they move across the continu-um, become more learner-centered and less instructor-centered, to the extent that the flatstructure does not even have an instructor.

As mentioned earlier, this list of contingencies is not exhaustive, but they do give an ideaof how contingencies in the classroom could fit with the classroom structure.

AN EXAMPLE: THE CLASSROOM, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & SARFIT

As universities and faculty members are considering adding information technologyresources to their classrooms, they, as managers, should also be considering the risk of mis-fit and the steps needed for refit. By adding information technology, they are changing a setof contingencies and the traditional classroom structure will provide a misfit. Informationtechnology can manifest itself in various ways, from using computers in the classroom andfor independent research to changing the technology of teaching. This section will examinethe SARFIT cycle of changing from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered approach, andassumes IT will be part of that shift.

First, however, a note regarding IT in higher education: Adding an IT component to acourse is only one example of a contingency faced by an instructor. This section is intend-ed only as a hypothetical example to illustrate how the SARFIT process might benefit deter-mining classroom structure in higher education organizations.

Step 1: Fit

Traditional classrooms involving a teacher-centered approach are in fit. This is theapproach that many faculty use, most students are accustomed to, and administrationexpects. The faculty member has authority because she is the sole source of information.The hierarchy is rigid, with the teacher at the top of the hierarchy and the students below

15

(see Figure 2). There is a high degree of formalization in that the standard procedureinvolves the teacher lecturing during class time, the students take notes on what the teachersays and at the end of the semester, the teacher tests that the students remember what shesaid by giving an objective exam, such as a multiple choice test. These behaviors are gov-erned by rules, both written (e.g., required attendance) and unwritten (e.g., note taking).The decision making is done by the teacher (e.g., what will be read and presented when).Communication relies on face-to-face time in class and during office hours.

Step 2: Change in Contingencies

And then information technology gets injected into this classroom, in a variety of ways.Rather than give exams, the faculty member expects the students to write original researchpapers (change in technology and assessment). Because students can use information tech-nology resources, such as the Internet, for knowledge gathering, the teacher no longer is thesole source of information and students are expected to analyze and synthesize information(change in cognitive domain). Class discussions replace lectures during class time (changein technology).

Step 3: Misfit

But if the teacher and students expect to shift to a student-centered approach to learning inthe traditional classroom, performance will suffer. Information technology can not just bean add-on in a traditional setting. For instance, multiple choice test questions can not effec-tively evaluate the knowledge and critical thinking skills developed by students who havedone their own research. Grades, the measure of student performance, will suffer. Studentswill become confused with the mixed signals sent: first, they are told that the teacher is theprovider of information, then they are asked to gather their own information, yet theteacher makes the final decision on what should be learned and tested. Student evaluationsof faculty, a measure of faculty performance, will reflect this dissatisfaction.

Step 4: Structural Adaptation

Realizing performance is suffering and accepting that information technology is changingthe contingencies, teachers will have to make a strategic choice on how to refit the struc-ture to meet the contingencies. This structural adaptation will include changes to authori-ty, for instance. Because the learners will contribute as much to the teaching–learningprocess, authority will be shared among learners and teachers. This will then shift the hier-archy, to a more equally-distributed one (see Figure 3). Because there may be less classroomtime and more time spent on individualized learning, the rules of behaviors will change. Forinstance, classroom time will be spent actively sharing knowledge, rather than passivelyabsorbing information. Furthermore, as each participant contributes knowledge, they willeach be making decisions about what content the course will include and will share respon-sibility for what is learned. Finally, communication will probably be extended to outsidethe classroom and outside the bounds of the teacher–student relationship. E-mail, class dis-cussion lists and scheduled online chats will help facilitate on-going communication amongall the learners, including the teacher. The Internet and e-mail also provide a means to con-tact people outside of the classroom, such as scholars at other institutions or students insimilar courses elsewhere (see Figure 4).

16

Step 5: Refit

As students, faculty members and the administration begin to develop and accept this newstructure as it fits with the new contingencies, performance will improve again. Throughindividualized learning, student grades will improve. As the unexpectedness of a learner-centered classroom decreases, students will be more comfortable in such a setting and willprobably give better faculty evaluations.

CONSIDERATIONS

But, certainly, it is not as easy to change the classroom structure as has been presented here.There are sure to be major hurdles to overcome. The biggest challenge would probably bechanging the way people think about higher education. The four structures, other than thetraditional structure, all require the student to be an active participant. This is completelydifferent from secondary schools, in which the student is a passive learner in all but therarest situations. (Again, this does depend in part on the field, one of the contingencies, asart classes are non-traditionally structured, but I think this is a special situation.) So toexpect students to go from passive learner of information one year to active sharer ofknowledge the next is not trivial.

Furthermore, to expect professors, who have very little, if any, formal teaching instruction,to become adept at all five (or even two or three) structures is another nontrivial concern.This may become even more complicated if teachers are expected to use more than onestructure each semester or even just more than one structure during their tenure. It may bemore likely to succeed if different professors just used different structures. This would alsodepend, however, on the field and goals of the course.

Another issue concerning the expectation of professors to use different structures, is theirtime allocation. A general, but serious, concern in the literature about professors using ITin their courses is that it just takes more time to teach with IT than to teach without it.Similarly, it will take more time for the professors to learn and become comfortable withnew classroom structures. Time spent on this, or the integration of IT, is time not spentdoing and publishing research. How will tenure decisions reflect this time reallocation? Ifuniversities are expecting professors to use new structures in order to make a better fit withstudents’ learning styles, will the criteria for tenure reflect this change in emphasis?

A related issue is the allocation of time in the course itself. For instance, what content willhave to be dropped from the lecture–style course in order to allow enough time for studentspresentations? This is essentially a “zero-sum” game (Marchionini and Powers 1996). Forwhatever new “thing” (whether content, presentation or technology) is added, somethingmust be dropped. This may be a hard reality to face, especially for professors who havetaught a course many times before.

This example is used to illustrate how the model developed in this paper could be tested.This paper suggests that instructors and administrators must consider the classroom struc-ture while evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of information technology. IT canchange the classroom contingencies and the classroom could then slip in misfit, unlessstructural adaptation is achieved.

17

LIMITATIONS

This paper was an attempt to show how organizational theories can be used to explain var-ious aspects of higher education organizations. I am not proposing that the SARFIT modelis the only way to determine classroom structures, but I am suggesting that it might pro-vide an organized way of beginning to look systematically at how different classroom struc-tures meet different contingencies. Nor am I suggesting that only one classroom structurecould be used in any given course. Rather, the structures are likely to overlap, but, again,they should overlap as called for by the current set of contingencies, which are alwayschanging. Like many organizational goals, classroom contingencies are likely to conflict aswell, and hybrid classroom structures will surely develop.

This paper is also limited to only four organizational theories. Certainly others, such as net-work analysis, could have been added. Additionally, I could have borrowed terminologyfrom the network literature in describing the five classroom structures. I chose not to usethose terms, however, in order to lend the newly developed structures their own legitimacy.

Finally, while the majority of this paper was devoted to structural contingency theory, eachparadigm has a valuable explanation to offer in understanding how higher educationalorganizations function and make decisions. Further analysis of this topic should focus onintegrating these models to develop a fuller explanation of higher education organizations.This paper should be used only as a first step.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination approach to examine organizations can produce a fuller understand-ing of how organizations are structured, what informs their decisions, and how otherorganizations can affect an organization’s internal and external actions. This approach canbe applied to colleges and universities in an attempt to understand them as organizations.This paper used institutional theory to consider legitimacy and isomorphism; populationecology to contemplate endowment, imprinting, capability and position; resource depend-ency to examine how universities can manipulate their environment in order to obtainscarce resources; and structural contingency theory to consider alternative classroom struc-tures according to varying contingencies. Finally, it developed a new model, based onDonaldson’s SARFIT and Mintzberg’s organizational structure models, of classroom con-tingencies and structures.

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich, Howard and Ellen R. Auster. 1986. “Even Dwarfs Started Small: Liabilities of Ageand Size and Their Strategic Implications.” Research in Organizational Behavior 8.165–198.

Amburgey, Terry L. and Hayagreeva Rao. 1996. “Organizational Ecology: Past, Present,and Future Directions.” Academy of Management Journal 39: 5. 1265–1286.

Baum, Joel A.C. 1996. “Organizational Ecology.” Handbook for Organization Studies, ed.Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord. Sage Publications. 77–114.

Baum, Joel A.C. and Christine Oliver. 1996. “Toward an Institutional Ecology ofOrganizational Founding.” Academy of Management Journal 39: 5. 1378–1427.

Concord University Law School website. [Online] http://www.concordlawschool.com/(January 12, 1999).

Donaldson, Lex. 1996. “The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory.”Handbook for Organization Studies, ed. Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, andWalter R. Nord. Sage Publications.

———. 1995. American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique ofParadigm Proliferation. Cambridge University Press.

Hall, Richard. 1999. Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. Prentice Hall.

———. 1992. “Chapter 3: Taking Things a Bit Too Far: Some Problems with EmergentInstitutional Theory.” Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology. K. Kelly (ed.). Elsevier Science Publishers.

Hannan, Michael T. 1998. “Rethinking Age Dependence in Organizational Mortality:Logical Formulations.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 1. 126–164.

Marchionini, Gary and Jennifer Goodall Powers. 1996. 1993–96 FIPSE Report. [Online].Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/FIPSE (April 29, 1998).

Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice Hall.

Mizruchi, Mark S. and Lisa C. Fein. 1999. “The Social Construction of OrganizationalKnowledge: A Study of the Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and NormativeIsomorphism.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44. 653–683.

Perrow, Charles. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill,Inc.

19

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salanick, Gerald R. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: AResource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row.

Rueter, John and Perrin. TLTR Summer Institute 1997 website. [Online] Available:http://www.irn.pdx.edu/PSUedtech/Documents/phoenix_sum_97/TLTR_blends_97/(October 16, 1998).

Scott, W. Richard. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications.

Selznick, Philip. 1996. “Institutionalism ‘Old’ and ‘New.’” Administrative Science Quarterly41. 270–277.

20